GR 142612; (July, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 142612. July 29, 2005
OSCAR ANGELES and EMERITA ANGELES, Petitioners, vs. THE HON. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE and FELINO MERCADO, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners Oscar and Emerita Angeles filed a criminal complaint for estafa against respondent Felino Mercado, their brother-in-law. They alleged that in 1992, they gave Mercado ₱210,000 to enter into a five-year antichresis contract (sanglaang-perde) over eight parcels of land owned by Juana Suazo. The parties agreed Mercado would handle the administration and paperwork. After three years, upon demanding an accounting, the Angeles spouses discovered the contract was executed solely in the names of Mercado and his wife, leading them to accuse Mercado of misappropriating their funds.
Mercado countered that their relationship was an industrial partnership (sosyo industrial), with the Angeles spouses as financiers and the Mercados providing industry. He asserted it was their established practice for business contracts to be under his name because the Angeles spouses, particularly Oscar who was a government employee, wished to remain anonymous as financiers due to fears of kidnapping or tax scrutiny. He presented supporting documents, including bank deposit receipts for Emerita Angeles and minutes from barangay conciliation where Oscar Angeles acknowledged the written partnership agreement.
ISSUE
Whether the Secretary of Justice committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the dismissal of the estafa complaint against Mercado.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the Secretary of Justice did not commit grave abuse of discretion. For estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code to prosper, the element of deceit or abuse of confidence must be present at the time of the transaction, inducing the victim to part with money or property. The Court found that the evidence did not establish such deceit by Mercado.
The factual circumstances pointed to a pre-existing partnership, not a singular antichresis transaction tainted by fraud. The Angeles spouses admitted to contributing capital and sharing profits, which are indicia of a partnership. Mercado’s explanation that contracts were placed in his name per the petitioners’ instruction to conceal their identity as financiers was credible and supported by documentary and testimonial evidence, including a ruling from a related civil case. The dispute essentially pertained to the accounting of partnership profits and management—a civil matter—not criminal misappropriation. Thus, the Secretary of Justice correctly found no prima facie case for estafa, and his resolution affirming the dismissal was a proper exercise of prosecutorial discretion, not warranting judicial overturn via certiorari. The petition was dismissed.